(09-19-2018 10:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:52 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I still don't see how a university preference for legacies would apply to athletes, or how it does at other universities.

I find it difficult to believe that at Stanford, for example, the university interferes in the recruiting process to the extent of directing coaches to make scholarship offers to legacies.

Just saying that Rice pretty much utterly fails at promoting *any* generational ties to a fairly large extent. The easier one is in the admission process -- if they cant/wont emphasize that, trying the 'generational tie' at athletics is even more work.

Doing or emphasizing the 'legacy' thing in any way, shape, or form, just doesnt seem to be within the DNA sequence for Rice.

I knew several Rice legacies (non-athletes). Some were 3rd generation. I think it’s a plus just not a very big one.

(09-19-2018 09:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have heard, albeit one source and not otherwise verified, from someone who used to be associated with Rice admissions, that 'legacy' considerations are overall extremely unimportant, almost to non-existence in the admissions process.

If this is incorrect, would love to hear otherwise.

And, I have three ex-roommates who have sons/daughters in college, excellent grades and outside activities, who applied and were not accepted. (i.e. as an example, one who was high school FB, drama, 4th in a class of 400, 4.1 GPA).

From these examples, it doesnt seem that Rice develops the generational ties that it could.

My understand is mostly opposite: that there is a definite admissions preference given to legacy applicants -- but not enough to offset the very high proportion of legacies who apply.

As for admissions generally, my sense is that the number of essentially PERFECT applicants is more than Rice can admit, so being perfect just gets you into a lottery. From there, it is effectively random as to which perfect candidates are offered admissions and which perfect candidates are not. So it's not that the ones not offered were deliberately rejected; it's that their names happened to not be drawn from the hat full of outstanding applicants.

I know that's little consolation to the candidate not offered, but it really seems to come down to luck of the draw. By definition, luck is not logical -- but neither is it personal.

During my years at Rice, I went to school with several "perfect" applicants (perfect SAT scores, etc.). Many had the social skills of a brown paper bag.

I preferred my imperfect classmates. They were a lot more interesting, easier to work with on team projects/assignments (I was a CHE) and worked harder to overcome their imperfections. The imperfect classmates graduated, many with honors and above, and have been successful in their chosen fields.

I wish Rice didn't focus so much on "perfect" applicants. I'd take an imperfect, but qualified, legacy over a perfect applicant with no ties to Rice.

From my high school class, 3 of us matriculated at Rice. One was a legacy (father and brother), one had 1 parent who had attended college and one was the first member of his family to attend college. None of us were perfect applicants. We all graduated in 4 years with engineering degrees ( 2 CHE and 1 EE). All had successful careers.

(09-19-2018 10:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:52 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I still don't see how a university preference for legacies would apply to athletes, or how it does at other universities.

I find it difficult to believe that at Stanford, for example, the university interferes in the recruiting process to the extent of directing coaches to make scholarship offers to legacies.

Just saying that Rice pretty much utterly fails at promoting *any* generational ties to a fairly large extent. The easier one is in the admission process -- if they cant/wont emphasize that, trying the 'generational tie' at athletics is even more work.

Doing or emphasizing the 'legacy' thing in any way, shape, or form, just doesnt seem to be within the DNA sequence for Rice.

That last sentence isn't really true. There's a lot of difference between not as many legacies as you'd like, and no preference for legacies at all. I don't know how many legacies apply, but it may not be practical to admit all who are qualified. As for athletes, nobody complaining can offer any answer to the straighforward question of how to implement a policy of preference for legacies within the recruiting process.

I'd argue that the lack of Greek Life, strong athletics programs, and the current administration's diversity agenda (whatever you may think of it, positive or negative) all reduce the amount of legacy students at Rice.

(09-19-2018 10:16 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 10:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:52 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I still don't see how a university preference for legacies would apply to athletes, or how it does at other universities.
I find it difficult to believe that at Stanford, for example, the university interferes in the recruiting process to the extent of directing coaches to make scholarship offers to legacies.

Just saying that Rice pretty much utterly fails at promoting *any* generational ties to a fairly large extent. The easier one is in the admission process -- if they cant/wont emphasize that, trying the 'generational tie' at athletics is even more work.
Doing or emphasizing the 'legacy' thing in any way, shape, or form, just doesnt seem to be within the DNA sequence for Rice.

That last sentence isn't really true. There's a lot of difference between not as many legacies as you'd like, and no preference for legacies at all. I don't know how many legacies apply, but it may not be practical to admit all who are qualified. As for athletes, nobody complaining can offer any answer to the straighforward question of how to implement a policy of preference for legacies within the recruiting process.

I don't think there is any legitimate way to implement a polity of preference for legacies in the recruiting of athletes. But I do find it remarkable that Rice seems almost to go to lengths to avoid legacy athletes. I'm well aware of a number of legacy student athletes that Rice simply refused to talk to, who went on to become significant contributors at other institutions. That seems very strange.

(09-19-2018 10:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 10:16 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 10:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:52 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I still don't see how a university preference for legacies would apply to athletes, or how it does at other universities.
I find it difficult to believe that at Stanford, for example, the university interferes in the recruiting process to the extent of directing coaches to make scholarship offers to legacies.

Just saying that Rice pretty much utterly fails at promoting *any* generational ties to a fairly large extent. The easier one is in the admission process -- if they cant/wont emphasize that, trying the 'generational tie' at athletics is even more work.
Doing or emphasizing the 'legacy' thing in any way, shape, or form, just doesnt seem to be within the DNA sequence for Rice.

That last sentence isn't really true. There's a lot of difference between not as many legacies as you'd like, and no preference for legacies at all. I don't know how many legacies apply, but it may not be practical to admit all who are qualified. As for athletes, nobody complaining can offer any answer to the straighforward question of how to implement a policy of preference for legacies within the recruiting process.

I don't think there is any legitimate way to implement a polity of preference for legacies in the recruiting of athletes. But I do find it remarkable that Rice seems almost to go to lengths to avoid legacy athletes. I'm well aware of a number of legacy student athletes that Rice simply refused to talk to, who went on to become significant contributors at other institutions. That seems very strange.

It isn't "Rice" though, is it? The individual coaching staffs do the recruiting.

Are you suggesting they intentionally avoid legacies because they are legacies? That's difficult to believe, too.

(09-19-2018 09:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have heard, albeit one source and not otherwise verified, from someone who used to be associated with Rice admissions, that 'legacy' considerations are overall extremely unimportant, almost to non-existence in the admissions process.

If this is incorrect, would love to hear otherwise.

And, I have three ex-roommates who have sons/daughters in college, excellent grades and outside activities, who applied and were not accepted. (i.e. as an example, one who was high school FB, drama, 4th in a class of 400, 4.1 GPA).

From these examples, it doesnt seem that Rice develops the generational ties that it could.

I knew a few legacies when I was at Rice. But I also know an older alum couple who had 2 kids who were both valedictorians in high school. Neither was admitted to Rice and both attended Northwestern instead. That strikes me as crazy because...

(09-19-2018 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That is a questionable policy to follow when one of the things holding back the university in popular rankings (which seem to be a priority) is the percentage of alumni who give. Emphasizing legacies certainly appears to be a way to enhance giving.

... this couple told me they now give all their money to Northwestern instead of Rice, even though both are Rice alums and neither attended Northwestern!

I don't think Rice should ever lower its standards for legacies. But I do think legacies who are otherwise qualified should be admitted in most cases. As for athletes, it seems like the Rice athletic department should, at the very least, have a database of Rice Athletics alums to help keep tabs on possible athlete legacies.

(09-19-2018 10:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Just saying that Rice pretty much utterly fails at promoting *any* generational ties to a fairly large extent. The easier one is in the admission process -- if they cant/wont emphasize that, trying the 'generational tie' at athletics is even more work.

But Rice doesn't fail -- legacy applicants DO get a preference in admissions -- just not enough to accept ALL outstanding legacy applicants.

(09-19-2018 10:35 AM)mrbig Wrote:  But I also know an older alum couple who had 2 kids who were both valedictorians in high school. Neither was admitted to Rice and both attended Northwestern instead.

There are many valedictorians every year who are not offered admission, because there are a great many more outstanding applicants (by every conceivable measure) than Rice can accept. Would you want that NOT to be the case?

(09-19-2018 10:39 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 10:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Just saying that Rice pretty much utterly fails at promoting *any* generational ties to a fairly large extent. The easier one is in the admission process -- if they cant/wont emphasize that, trying the 'generational tie' at athletics is even more work.

But Rice doesn't fail -- legacy applicants DO get a preference in admissions -- just not enough to accept ALL outstanding legacy applicants.

George, that simply is not true. There are not enough qualified legacy applicants in a given year to make that much of a difference. And i, too, have been told directly by the Head of Admissions that legacy candidates get very little favorable treatment. It's noted during the review process, but that's about it.

(09-19-2018 10:16 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  There's a lot of difference between not as many legacies as you'd like, and no preference for legacies at all.

Indeed. And Rice does give SOME preference to legacy applicants.

(09-19-2018 10:16 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't know how many legacies apply, but it may not be practical to admit all who are qualified.

My understanding is that it would be absolutely impractical, unless you wanted to to have a class that was overwhelmingly made up of legacies.

That's another thing that's changed since my day. The admissions are much more selective. Things like a valedictorian, 4.0 gpa, active in extracurricular activities, etc. no longer put an applicant at the top of the list. Those things are required just to survive the first cut.

(09-19-2018 10:15 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have heard, albeit one source and not otherwise verified, from someone who used to be associated with Rice admissions, that 'legacy' considerations are overall extremely unimportant, almost to non-existence in the admissions process.

If this is incorrect, would love to hear otherwise.

And, I have three ex-roommates who have sons/daughters in college, excellent grades and outside activities, who applied and were not accepted. (i.e. as an example, one who was high school FB, drama, 4th in a class of 400, 4.1 GPA).

From these examples, it doesnt seem that Rice develops the generational ties that it could.

My understand is mostly opposite: that there is a definite admissions preference given to legacy applicants -- but not enough to offset the very high proportion of legacies who apply.

As for admissions generally, my sense is that the number of essentially PERFECT applicants is more than Rice can admit, so being perfect just gets you into a lottery. From there, it is effectively random as to which perfect candidates are offered admissions and which perfect candidates are not. So it's not that the ones not offered were deliberately rejected; it's that their names happened to not be drawn from the hat full of outstanding applicants.

I know that's little consolation to the candidate not offered, but it really seems to come down to luck of the draw. By definition, luck is not logical -- but neither is it personal.

During my years at Rice, I went to school with several "perfect" applicants (perfect SAT scores, etc.). Many had the social skills of a brown paper bag.

I preferred my imperfect classmates. They were a lot more interesting, easier to work with on team projects/assignments (I was a CHE) and worked harder to overcome their imperfections. The imperfect classmates graduated, many with honors and above, and have been successful in their chosen fields.

I wish Rice didn't focus so much on "perfect" applicants. I'd take an imperfect, but qualified, legacy over a perfect applicant with no ties to Rice.

From my high school class, 3 of us matriculated at Rice. One was a legacy (father and brother), one had 1 parent who had attended college and one was the first member of his family to attend college. None of us were perfect applicants. We all graduated in 4 years with engineering degrees ( 2 CHE and 1 EE). All had successful careers.

The on paper “perfect” statistics are pretty much everyone who has a shot to get in. Applications for top schools are basically luck now, or having 1 thing that allows the school to diversify the class. 75% of freshmen were above a 33 ACT (that’s 99th percentile for hs students). 25% of freshmen had perfect scores of 36. I used ACT because the composite is listed but SAT is similar. I’d guess most of those kids are near the top of their HS class. At this point you need a bunch of other stuff on your resume to get in. Significant community involvement. Efforts to obtain leadership roles in areas you’ve demonstrated passion for. Nationally recognized awards. And definitely communication skills because that’s emphasized in the interview.

Rice definitely rejects plenty of kids with “perfect” applications on paper. Legacies included.

On the other hand, each year of applicants only has 250 kids who aren’t in the top 1% of HS students by testing. Athletics takes a chunk of those. Minority applicants take another chunk. So if you’re a legacy and not testing in the top 1% I doubt it gets you in unless you have a bunch of other interesting stuff.

All top schools are ridiculously selective. Even 10 year ago when I was applying I had an adcom at Duke tell me something along the lines of “the best way to guarantee admittance was to be a world-class oboist the year their orchestra was looking for one.”

(09-18-2018 04:42 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Ben and Ann Hollas are two others that we should have recruited (in baseball and volleyball, respectively). Ben played baseball at Oklahoma. Ann is the setter at SFA (who just beat Rice in volleyball last week). Their parents are Will and Liz, who were football and tennis stars at Rice.

Another Rice legacy family going elsewhere are Colby and Kaley Feris (children of Chris and Lacey Feris - baseball and women's basketball standouts at Rice). Colby is a freshman on the UH baseball team this year. Kaley is committed to play volleyball at HBU next year as a freshman.

Speaking of Ann:

https://sfajacks.com/news/2018/9/17/wome...-week.aspx

A son of a Rice football player from Angleton was only offered a walk-on from Baliff and not a scholarship. He decided to give up football and went to TAMU Galveston in order to train for a maritime career.

(09-19-2018 02:32 PM)75src Wrote:  A son of a Rice football player from Angleton was only offered a walk-on from Baliff and not a scholarship. He decided to give up football and went to TAMU Galveston in order to train for a maritime career.

Well, did he have other football offers?

Hard to blame the Bailiff staff if he didn't.

I suppose probably the biggest legacy loss was Andrew Luck. But he was probably a long shot. August Roitsch ended up starting for Navy teams that beat us. There were others that could play for us.

(09-19-2018 02:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I suppose probably the biggest legacy loss was Andrew Luck. But he was probably a long shot. August Roitsch ended up starting for Navy teams that beat us. There were others that could play for us.

How about constructing a longitudinal study?

I know of an 8th grader who is going to be a very good QB (built like Luck). He has size, good arm strength and can already read defenses. He also plays baseball and was the leading hitter and pitcher on his 12 yo PONY team that was the farthest advancing team from the Northwest US. Rice has been high on his list of schools because his dad was an obscure Rice football player.

What are the odds that he will:
a) be noticed by Rice?
b) be contacted by Rice?
c) be recruited by Rice?
d) play for Rice?
e) be recruited by other institutions?
f) play for another institution?

(09-19-2018 10:46 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  That's another thing that's changed since my day. The admissions are much more selective. Things like a valedictorian, 4.0 gpa, active in extracurricular activities, etc. no longer put an applicant at the top of the list. Those things are required just to survive the first cut.

(09-19-2018 10:53 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  The on paper “perfect” statistics are pretty much everyone who has a shot to get in. Applications for top schools are basically luck now, or having 1 thing that allows the school to diversify the class.

. . . . Even 10 year ago when I was applying I had an adcom at Duke tell me something along the lines of “the best way to guarantee admittance was to be a world-class oboist the year their orchestra was looking for one.”

Exactly! I often try to explain this to families: yes, your kid is outstanding in every way, but so is just about every other applicant, so ultimately it's a lottery among applicants who are all outstanding, and the lottery odds just aren't that great. If your kid isn't offered admission, it's not because he was less outstanding; it's because he wasn't lucky.

This seems like a simple concept, but people seem to have a hard time understanding it. It's almost as if people would prefer to hear that their kid was either (1) actually inferior or (2) deliberately screwed, rather than to be told that it just came down to luck -- as if inferiority and/or malevolence are more satisfying explanations.

(09-19-2018 03:11 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 02:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I suppose probably the biggest legacy loss was Andrew Luck. But he was probably a long shot. August Roitsch ended up starting for Navy teams that beat us. There were others that could play for us.

How about constructing a longitudinal study?

I know of an 8th grader who is going to be a very good QB (built like Luck). He has size, good arm strength and can already read defenses. He also plays baseball and was the leading hitter and pitcher on his 12 yo PONY team that was the farthest advancing team from the Northwest US. Rice has been high on his list of schools because his dad was an obscure Rice football player.

What are the odds that he will:
a) be noticed by Rice?
b) be contacted by Rice?
c) be recruited by Rice?
d) play for Rice?
e) be recruited by other institutions?
f) play for another institution?

Sounds like if he isn't contacted by Rice at a certain point, he or his dad should send some game film and a transcript to the coaches.